Alan Johnson: The present contract ends in 2010, as it was always intended to do. There needs to be discussions between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office to see how the situation will emerge post-2010.

David Drew: It is good to hear what my right hon. Friend says, but will he assure us that any ideas from the Post Office on creating share ownership among members, for example, will not be a form of back-door privatisation? It is a crucial public service, which is vital to rural areas as well as urban Britain, and it is important that the Government stick to their manifesto commitment that it is a publicly owned service. Does he agree?

Alan Johnson: The starting point for getting a grip on the problem was the report by the performance and innovation unit, welcomed on both sides of the House, in 1999–2000. It said that there was a serious problem with the rural network, which required Government protection, but for the urban network—6,000 post offices—it was for the Post Office to deal with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to find a way in which sub-postmasters could make a decent living. The simple fact was that there were too many post offices in urban areas for sub-postmasters to make a decent living. Members on both sides of the House thought that the report was excellent. Those discussions took place, and the NFSP and the Post Office agreed to urban rationalisation. As a result, 2,500 urban post offices closed, but 99 per cent. of the population are still within one mile of a post office. I regret the fact that that may have caused problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I think that it was the right thing to do, painful though it was. Governments have to make painful decisions when looking at a problem on the scale faced by the post office network.

Brian Iddon: The first car that I ever bought was a second-hand Issigonis-designed Mini. I have driven cars from that group of companies all my life until my present car, which is an MG ZT. I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is the finest car that I have ever driven, so I am saddened at the demise of MG Rover. My concern is that the finest engineering skills that we have in Britain should be preserved in the engineering industry. How much success has the taskforce had in securing engineering jobs for the fine engineers who were working in that group?

Alan Johnson: I would always buy a second-hand car from my hon. Friend. One of the great successes of the taskforce, though perhaps it did not take a great deal of effort, was that within two months of the closure of Longbridge, 1,600 highly skilled engineers had been found jobs with other companies, such as Airbus. Highly skilled manufacturing jobs came to Longbridge very quickly. The problem is not with the highly skilled engineers, but with the less highly skilled workers who need to be retrained. It may take longer to find them jobs, but highly skilled engineers were quickly hoovered up.

Barry Gardiner: No; I do not share that suspicion. The regional development agencies have a key development role working with regional suppliers, which is happening not only in the north-west, where my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble has an interest, but in Yeovil and other parts of the country.

Alun Michael: I am not sure what particular issue the hon. Gentleman is getting at. As I said, there are detailed codes of conduct that exclude individuals from applications or issues that affect their interests. They follow the guidance of the Cabinet Office and are taken very seriously by board members, as I know from many discussions. The generality of my answer is that there are very strict codes in each of the RDAs, but if the hon. Gentleman has anything more specific in mind, perhaps he would like to raise it with me,

John Redwood: Will the Minister strengthen the code of conduct in two ways? First, will he do that through control of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure to stop RDAs wasting money and going into the glossy brochure industry too often? Secondly, will he stop them misrepresenting the views of local communities that do not want their attentions and whose views are much better represented by Members of Parliament and councillors? So often, RDAs say the opposite and they are wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman strengthen the code of conduct?

Mary Creagh: I thank the Minister for his correspondence on the problems faced by the Brotherton chemical company, which employs 50 people in Wakefield. It has suffered the double whammy of its gas prices doubling in the past two years and a 50 per cent. increase in its raw materials. Has he had any response from Ofgem on its inquiries to the European Commission about why the gas interconnector has not been flowing at its full capacity when demand is so high in this country? Does he share the industry's concerns that the unusual—

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that, in the third quarter of last year, average electricity prices rose by more than 27 per cent.? That was due in large part to the climate change levy. Does he realise that the levy is impacting even more harshly on small and medium-sized companies than on others? What do the Government propose to do about that?

Keith Vaz: Is not there another side to the story? As the Minister for Trade's visit to India has shown, there is a great deal of inward investment from India and China into the United Kingdom. In fact, that inward investment might exceed the investment of our country into countries such as India. Is not that good for British jobs? Should not we see China and India as partners in the new global economy?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. The discussions are bogged down in agriculture chiefly because of the protectionist instincts of some, though not all, European Union member states. Now that we are free of our presidency mantle, we can work on that.
	As for whether we need a change in the common agricultural policy, we came away from Hong Kong with an agreement that all export subsidies would be eliminated by 2013, and that we would make substantial progress by 2010, the half-way stage. That, combined with a number of other factors, will help us to ensure that there is a proper pro-development outcome, which of necessity will require us to look at the CAP again.

Ian Lucas: What proportion of engineering apprenticeships in England are being undertaken by women

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because the regional development agencies are key to this process, and we seek to ensure that they all address the issue of women moving into self-employment and business. I am delighted that the East Midlands Development Agency is taking that matter particularly seriously, and has developed an action plan and specific proposals to address those issues, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, include access to finance, the problems of caring and domestic relationships and, crucially, business advice that recognises the particular challenges that face women moving into self-employment.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the work that he has done in promoting this crucial issue. The figures show that changes are taking place, and that the introduction of home responsibilities protection and the fact that more women are now working is narrowing the gap between men and women. However, the crucial issue for the future is women's private pensions. We need to ensure that, as part of the debate surrounding the Turner report, the private pensions issue is tackled. Although we are beginning to address it and witnessing changes to the state pension, that issue is still very much on the agenda.

Geoff Hoon: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep the House fully informed about the hon. Gentleman's prospects in the current leadership contest in the Liberal Democratic party. The House has been eager to learn whether he will put his hat into the ring, and the odds are shortening each week as other runners and riders fall by the wayside. We now know, from an email from the chief aide of the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, that the hon. Gentleman does not want to stay neutral and not declare for anyone. We are all delighted to see that Liberal Democrats are breaking the habit of a lifetime and getting off the fence. Time is running out for the hon. Gentleman to announce his candidature and we give him every opportunity today to do so.
	On the issue of extraordinary rendition, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully enough to the answer that I gave earlier. The document to which he refers predates the statements made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He set out clearly the relevant facts and those facts have not changed. As a matter of simple timing, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they can hardly have changed as a result of a document that predated the announcements that have been made.
	I am also interested in the hon. Gentleman's position on organised fraud. If he had looked a little more carefully at the issue, he would have seen that it concerns identity fraud. I am therefore slightly surprised by his party's position on identity cards, as part of the underlying policy for introducing identity cards is to deal with identity fraud. If the hon. Gentleman were on this side of the House, he would have to supply some answers, instead of merely raising questions in the way that he does. I realise that supplying answers is something that the Liberal Democrats are not good at, but practice makes perfect. Perhaps if he would have a go at it, it might help.
	As far as the issue of interception is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out clearly the Government's position yesterday and I have nothing to add to that.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that this issue will be brought to the Floor of the House by right hon. and hon. Members during questions. Indeed, there will be opportunities on the Adjournment to discuss theses issues, and I certainly urge my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of using Westminster Hall for that important debate.

Geoff Hoon: I certainly believe that such an initiative would be wholly consistent with the Government's efforts to ensure an emphasis not only on citizens' rights, but on their responsibilities as well. If we are tackle not only more serious crimes but the kind of antisocial behaviour that affects far too many of our constituencies throughout the country, it is important that all citizens participate in ensuring that those responsible both for antisocial behaviour and for crime are brought to justice.

Gordon Banks: May I take this opportunity to introduce my right hon. Friend to an early-day motion that has been tabled; early-day motion 1417, in my name?
	[That this House acknowledges the role played by the Bevin Boys, who served this nation during the period 1943 to 1948; notes that many paid the ultimate price in their endeavour to rid Europe of Nazi tyrants; and calls upon the Government officially to recognise by the way of an award similar to that available to the military veterans the importance of the Bevin Boys to victory in the Second World War.]
	The Bevin boys were 48,000 conscripted miners who served this country well with their toil, sweat and lives between 1943 and 1948. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and speak to relevant members of the Cabinet to investigate the possibility of officially recognising the service that those people provided to this country during the war years and properly and relevantly commending their efforts?

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the special steel industry, especially in the light of the decision by Outokumpu, a major firm in my constituency, to declare 800 redundancies and to close the coal division due to competition with China? I would then have the opportunity to seek an assurance that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and from Yorkshire Forward will work with the remaining parts of the special steel industry and try to get them to work more co-operatively so that they can better resist competition from China and other countries.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have a debate on the future of the joint strike fighter and, in particular, the STOVL version of it? If that is not going ahead, it raises not only a question mark over the future of that aircraft, but a bigger question mark over the carriers and the sheer size of them that will be required for other variants that may have to operate?

Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a further statement on arrangements for vetting those working with children and barring those who are unsuitable. In addition, I am placing in the Library copies of the review of List 99 that I announced last week, which gives further background on this statement. Given the seriousness of the issues, the statement is, as I have discussed with you, Mr. Speaker, longer than usual.
	Nothing matters to parents more than the safety of their children, so I deeply regret the worry and concern that has been caused to parents over the past few days. I am determined to do everything that I can to ease their concerns. This is a complex area. There are no easy answers. Child protection has been a top priority of successive Governments. Ministers in this and previous Administrations have made difficult decisions, particularly in maintaining the safety of children while protecting those working in schools from malicious allegations.
	The operation of the list is set out in legislation going back to 1926, but attitudes have changed significantly in recent decades. That has led to a greater concentration on the terrible effects of child abuse. Consequently, law and practice has been continually tightened. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for paving the way for the sex offenders register and for beginning the process of automatically barring teachers convicted of sex offences.
	This Government have gone further still. From 2000, those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar. All sex offenders, if deemed unsuitable to work with children, are placed on List 99 and banned from schools indefinitely. In 2003, we passed the most comprehensive overhaul of sex offences legislation since the 1950s. We introduced the Criminal Records Bureau in 2002 to ensure that all schools have full access to the convictions and cautions of the school work force. Sir Michael Bichard's report following the events in Soham made 31 further recommendations, 13 of which are already in place, with the remainder being implemented, but there is more to be done.
	Our vetting and barring system, which is a shared responsibility between Government, local agencies and employers, has developed piecemeal over the past 80 years. In addition—rightly—the public mood on the issues has hardened. It is time, therefore, to overhaul the system. We need a system in which child protection comes first, above all other considerations. It must be a rigorous system, drawing on the best expert advice. There must be absolute clarity about who does what. The system must command public confidence and it must be accountable. It must also be fair to individuals, giving rights of appeal. There must be no witch hunts against hard-working teachers and there must be protection against false or malicious allegations. Today, I am setting out how we will achieve that.
	Public concern has focused on the operation of List 99. I understand that concern, but ensuring that List 99 works properly is only one key part of the current vetting system. The most important check against a school unknowingly employing someone with a sex offence is the check that employers do through the Criminal Records Bureau. Those checks show the full record of potential employees, including convictions and cautions, and whether the applicant is on List 99 or other centrally held databases. Criminal records checks allow schools and others to make informed decisions about whether to appoint. List 99 provides a further check, including in the most serious cases—for someone who is on the list because they are unsuitable to work with children, it is a criminal offence for them even to apply to work in a school.
	List 99 contains 4,045 names. The vast majority are barred indefinitely from working in schools. A much smaller subset—210—are subject to restrictions short of a full ban. List 99 goes wider than just sexual offenders and covers those convicted of crimes, such as deception, as well as those who are unsuitable on health grounds. But because List 99 has only ever automatically covered those individuals who are already working in the education sector when they commit the offence, the Criminal Records Bureau, which covers everyone, is the main safety net.
	For convictions for 40 of the most serious offences, inclusion on the list is automatic. For other cases, the decisions have been at Ministers' discretion, and the vast majority have always been taken by officials on Ministers' behalf. In those cases, advice may be sought from a wide variety of relevant sources before a decision is taken—for example, from the police, experts in sexual offences, forensic psychiatrists and others.
	In 2005, 2,554 cases were referred to the Department, of which 513 resulted in a full bar. In many cases in which an individual is not barred, the evidence considered will have been based on suspicions and allegations rather than firm criminal cautions or convictions, or the individuals referred to the Department will not have previously worked in the education sector.
	A preliminary comparison of these numbers with historic data from 1985 and 1995 suggests that the number of decisions reached each year has increased substantially, yet in all three years both Ministers and officials have made a wide variety of decisions on individuals with convictions or cautions or who are subject to allegations that have been referred for a wide variety of reasons, including sexual offences. As I said, these issues are complex, and always have been. Successive Ministers have been required to make the most difficult decisions.
	Understandably, recent concerns have focused on discretionary decisions by Ministers not to include an individual on List 99, despite that individual being on the sex offenders register. The review that I set in place has identified 10 cases since 1997. In each case, the recommendations after expert evidence were that those individuals posed no threat to children. As a result, those individuals were issued with a grave warning with the requirement for disclosure if they applied for a job in a school. I can, however, tell the House that officials and the police have examined each case. Current inquiries suggest that none of the individuals concerned is working in a school. I have asked police to visit each of those individuals to check whether there is any cause for concern. None is judged by the police to pose a current risk.
	Over the past 10 days, however, I have been determined to go further to provide a more complete analysis. I have asked officials to look at similar decisions made by officials, and decisions by Ministers and officials on cases since 1997 where the relevant offence was committed prior to the introduction of the sex offenders register. That has identified a further 46 cases. As many of those cases deal with very old offences, and are not monitored under sex offender monitoring arrangements, our information on them is much more limited. Officials and, where relevant, the police, have found the following. For 32 of the 46, there is no evidence that the individuals are working with children. In one case, an individual is working in education, but has been assessed by the police as of no cause for concern. In 13 cases, preliminary checks have shown no reason for concern, but our information is as yet not complete. In two of those cases, inconsistent data need to be reconciled. Further action on all 13 cases will be considered in conjunction with the police on a case-by-case basis.
	I am sure that the House will want me to thank the police for their work in following up individuals as part of this exercise. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] In addition, the police have carried out an initial review to see if there were any further individuals being monitored on the sex offenders register who might be eligible for List 99. Initial investigations suggest that there may be 32 such cases in England and Wales. As a precaution, the police have assessed all those cases. In one case, investigations are continuing. I fully accept that this review of individual cases has identified wider issues about how the vetting system currently operates. Building on Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry, I have identified three key issues that we now need to address including, first, the lack of coherence between List 99 and the other lists held nationally. That is made worse by problems in sharing information and by the fact that, historically, cautions have been treated differently from convictions, despite both being a legal statement of guilt.
	Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible for doing what, locally and nationally and, thirdly, we need to address ministerial involvement in decisions. I have concluded that further reform is necessary. Some of it can be done immediately, and some through the primary legislation that we have already planned. Over the past 10 days, I have considered whether it would be possible more closely to align the sex offenders register and List 99. I have decided that we need to go further than that. After extensive consideration, I have decided the most effective approach is to bar from working with children all those who are now convicted or cautioned for any sexual offence against a child, whether the individual is on the sex offenders register or not. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] First, therefore, I will shortly introduce regulations automatically to enter on List 99 anyone who is convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence against a child. I will also automatically bar individuals for a range of other serious sexual offences against adults. By including cautions as well as convictions the anomaly between offenders who are convicted and those who admit their guilt and accept a caution will end. Individuals will have the right to make representations, but they will need to prove that they are not a threat to children before they can work in a school or other educational establishment. I shall consult widely on the detailed implementation of that measure.
	Secondly, I will require mandatory Criminal Records Bureau checks for all newly appointed school employees, thus replacing the current strong guidance. That will also require that teaching agencies ensure that their teachers have a Criminal Record Bureau check. That should ensure that all employers make judgments about appointments in full knowledge of the facts, whether or not a potential employee has previously worked in the education sector. Thirdly, Ofsted will carry out an urgent survey of existing vetting practice in a sample of schools, and it will report to me in the spring. Fourthly, I will write today to all schools, setting out how the checking system will work and informing them of the change to mandatory CRB checks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will write today to all chief constables, chief probation officers and the Youth Justice Board to restate how the current system works, how it is changing and the priority attached to this area.
	Fifthly, I will ensure that all Department for Education and Skills staff who are part of the vetting process receive appropriate training, support and advice in child protection issues. Finally, in advance of legislating to remove Ministers from the process entirely, I will establish a panel of independent experts chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, the former head of Barnado's, to oversee the whole List 99 process. His role will be to ensure the quality of the process and advise me on any further List 99 cases that need to be decided. The panel will draw on expertise from the police and child protection specialists. While I will not fetter my discretion on individual cases, I cannot at present envisage the circumstances in which I would not follow its expert advice.
	The expert panel will also review cases determined before 1997. It will examine cases that, had the sex offenders register existed, would have resulted in the individual's inclusion on the register, and all cases involving a sexual offence or allegation that resulted in a decision not to include an individual on List 99 or in a restriction or partial bar. The aim of the review will be to establish whether any individual poses a risk of harm to children and if any action should be taken. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills will ensure that the relevant former Minister is consulted in any such case. Those reforms will make the current List 99 system work better immediately, but the whole Government are determined to replace List 99 entirely with a new, better system as quickly as possible. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said in his statement today, "good progress" is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry. The necessary legislation that was promised in the Queen's speech will be introduced in February. In particular, that legislation will bring together List 99 and the Protection of Children Act list in a single register of those barred from working with children. I will also use that legislation to make further reforms.
	I will legislate to give independent experts the final decision on who should be barred. This will have the effect of removing from Ministers the responsibility for taking barring decisions. Decision making will be transferred to a statutory body that will be the holder of the new combined register and will take all decisions about who should be barred. Individuals will retain the right of appeal. While I will consult about the exact role of the body, I will ensure that police advice will inform every decision.
	Over the years procedures have been strengthened. It is time, however, to strengthen them further. Nobody who is convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. We need an independent panel to take decisions. And we must do all this with proper safeguards to ensure that no teacher, subject to claims or allegations that may be strongly contested, should be unfairly condemned. Our task as a Government, my task as Secretary of State and the task of all of us as legislators is to get this framework right. That is what the reforms that I have announced today will do.

David Willetts: Parents and teachers will be relieved that at last the Secretary of State has made her statement today. After nearly a fortnight in which teachers and parents have become increasingly worried and confused about sex offenders at schools, at last we have some basic information, and we welcome that. We also welcome the right hon. Lady's regret at the uncertainty that we have seen over the past fortnight. We welcome her final statement that no one convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. But it is a great pity that even after Soham, even after the Bichard report, it looks as if the Secretary of State and her predecessors were taking decisions that broke that principle Does she now regret taking decisions that breached the principle that she enunciated today?
	Why has it taken so long to get from the right hon. Lady elementary information about what has been going on in our schools? Ministers were personally deciding whether sex offenders should work in schools. She rightly stressed today the delicacy and the difficulty of those decisions. We understand that, but surely, then, the Department would have been keeping track of the sex offenders that it was releasing into our schools. Instead, for a fortnight the Department has been incapable of answering basic questions about those offenders.
	Even if the Secretary of State did not decide on individual cases, surely it was her responsibility to make sure that they were properly monitored. Instead, parents have been shocked that Ministers have been so ignorant of decisions that they themselves have taken. As parents' concern has mounted, the Secretary of State has remained largely invisible and largely silent. It is this complete absence of reliable information or strong leadership from the Department over the past fortnight that has contributed to the lack of confidence that we see today. Does she accept how much damage the uncertainty and anxiety of the past fortnight has done to the confidence of parents and teachers in the regime that is supposed to maintain the integrity of people in our schools?
	There are other key questions that I put to the Department 10 days ago. Although the Secretary of State has given us much useful information today, she has not answered all the questions. For example, why is it still possible to work in a school without even completing a basic criminal records check? Why did a previous Secretary of State specifically recommend schools to continue recruiting people before those checks had been completed? Were head teachers and governing bodies informed if Ministers did decide that a sex offender should be permitted to work in their school?
	Why did the Secretary of State tell the House last week that offenders were "automatically" put on List 99, which "bars them for life" from teaching, when we now know that that has not been the case? Indeed, in her statement today she said: "From the year 2000 those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar." How can we reconcile that statement with the apparent evidence that in 2001 a previous Secretary of State did place someone on List 99 without a full bar on their working with children in schools? Did the Secretary of State receive advice last year that the system was not working properly? What steps did she take in the light of that advice?
	The Secretary of State set out a range of proposals today. We welcome the independent review that she announced. We called for precisely such a review last week by an independent person so as once more to restore confidence in the system. The right hon. Lady says that she will finally implement the Bichard report, but may I take her back six years to the Protection of Children Act 1999? The purpose of that Act was to achieve
	"a 'one-stop shop' to compel or allow employers to access a single point for checking the names of people they propose to employ in a post involving the care of children."
	That was the purpose of legislation passed by the House six years ago. We want to know not just why the Secretary of State and her predecessors have failed to implement a proposal in a report 18 months ago, but why they have failed to implement legislation passed by the House six years ago.
	We will, of course, work with the Government and aim to implement constructively the legislation that the Secretary of State proposes—legislation that Ministers described as urgent 18 months ago. Of course we will work with them on that. Our priority will be to restore the confidence of parents and teachers, after a fortnight during which their confidence in the Secretary of State and the system that she administers has ebbed away.I believe that she is an honourable person, but it must be for her and her conscience whether she is capable of regaining the confidence of parents and teachers who have suffered such anxiety, concern and uncertainty over the past 10 days.

Edward Davey: May I thank the Minister for her statement and pay tribute to her work and that of her officials and the police in the past 10 days to conclude this vital review? Despite the comments from some Conservative Members, the Secretary of State has gone a long way today towards ensuring the outcome that everybody wants—the restoration of parents' confidence in the child protection system. However, I hope that she acknowledges that it will take more than one statement to complete that process, and we are prepared to work with her to do just that.
	I particularly welcome the proposal to introduce a single list for people working with children, which will end confusion for employers and the dangers, inconsistencies and loopholes caused by the multitude of lists. I also welcome the removal from Ministers of the responsibility of conducting individual case reviews and the new guidance to schools on appointment procedures and mandatory CRB checks.
	Will the Secretary of State explain why the latest guidance issued by her Department in June last year did not require schools to receive an enhanced CRB disclosure before appointing a teacher, as set out in previous guidance? What can she say to reassure parents and schools that the CRB can perform the increased number of mandatory checks quickly?
	I support the proposal to appoint a panel of experts to review individual cases. Can the Secretary of State confirm that its criteria and guidelines will be published? Can she confirm that her plans will ensure that certain categories of work with children that are currently exempt from CRB checks will now all be covered? Why were child carers minding children over eight years old ever exempt from CRB checks? Can she confirm that all schools—state schools, independent schools, community schools and city academies—will be subject to the same vetting requirements?
	Will the Secretary of State accept that parts of the package that she has introduced today urgently require more work? Does she share my concern that some agencies supplying staff to schools appear to be particularly poor at checking references and records, and what is she doing about it? When people from overseas apply to teach in our schools, is she convinced that her plans provide for sufficient checks? Will guidance for police on issuing cautions be changed in light of today's announcement?
	Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that in this vital drive to protect children, we will also remember to protect teachers when false allegations are made? Will she ensure that new guidance and training remind schools of the need for safeguards for teachers who may have been wrongly accused? Will she legislate to stop teachers being named before they are charged with offences?
	Will the Secretary of State accept that the situation has arisen largely because of delays in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry? How many of the 18 Bichard recommendations that remain unimplemented are her responsibility, and why have they not been implemented? How many of the unimplemented Bichard recommendations are the responsibility of the Home Office? Given the Home Office delays with computer projects for Bichard, will she reassure the House on the time scale for the IT projects that lie behind today's proposal? When will those IT projects be implemented and what safeguards exist for the interim?
	It is in the interests of children, teachers, schools and the wider public that confidence is restored rapidly and the hysteria is ended. The Secretary of State has made a real start today—if she delivers on her promises and answers our reasonable questions, Liberal Democrats will work with her to complete the task.

Barry Sheerman: May I criticise my right hon. Friend in one respect? Some of us with a bit of interest in history will be quite sad to see a piece of legislation that has lasted 79 years at last being dragged out of the cupboard, shaken up and renewed, although only a slight amount of nostalgia is involved. No other Government have done that.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who, in all the frenzy over the past two weeks, has kept a clear, cool head, has not listened to the trumped-up charges from the Opposition, and has come through, after hard work, with proposals that have taken the game away from them. Does she agree that one educational lesson to come out of the past 10 days is: "You might have two enormous brains but not much common sense"?

Charles Clarke: With permission, I would like to make a statement on the regulation of cannabis. The House will know that last March I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to examine new evidence on the harmfulness of cannabis and to evaluate whether it altered their assessment of the drug's classification. In so doing, I was particularly concerned by studies, published since the council's 2002 report, which seemed to indicate strong links between cannabis and serious mental illness. I am very grateful to the council for the work that it has done in responding to my request and I am today placing a copy of its report and conclusions in the Library of the House.
	I shall highlight two conclusions from the council's report. The first is that cannabis is harmful and its use can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological harms and hazards; that the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant; that cannabis is potentially harmful, with short-term risks to physical health; that a substantial research programme into the relationship between cannabis and mental health should be instituted; that the Government ought to seek to reduce the use of cannabis; and that the cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis should remain illegal.
	The second conclusion is that the level of classification is only one among the issues to be addressed and that, in the council's view, priority needs to be given to proper enforcement of the law, to education and to campaigning against the use of cannabis. The council recommends a substantial Government education campaign, strengthened medical services for those dependent on cannabis and greater protection for those with pre-existing mental conditions that place them at particular risk from cannabis use. The council also proposes further research to improve our understanding of the mental health implications of cannabis use.
	I have discussed those recommendations with my colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Health, and we have agreed to accept and implement them energetically. In so doing, we accept that the use of cannabis significantly increases the chances of developing chronic bronchitis and poses a potential lung cancer risk. We accept the growing body of research that suggests that cannabis may exacerbate or even trigger a range of serious mental health problems, including schizophrenia. In the words of the ACMD report,
	"the mental health effects of cannabis are real and significant".
	In summary, cannabis is anything but harmless. That is why possession of cannabis remains punishable by up to two years in prison. It is why the Government strongly oppose proposals to legalise the drug, and will continue to do so. This month, we have introduced new powers under the Drugs Act 2005 to strengthen the hand of the police in dealing with those caught supplying the drug.
	However, as the advisory council's report indicates, the illegal status of the drug is not enough. We need a massive programme of public education to convey the danger of cannabis use. Our aim is to provide effective education in schools about the risks posed by cannabis, to send the right messages about the harms the drug does and, very importantly, to equip young people with the knowledge and courage to make the right decisions. We will use the "Frank" media campaign and other channels to raise understanding about the dangerous and illegal impact of cannabis consumption. The campaign, delivered in partnership with the police, will publicise the penalties for cannabis dealing, production and use.
	Growing and selling cannabis is neither harmless nor, as some argue, idealistic. It is a multi-million pound business, often organised by sophisticated and violent criminals. I remind the House that those who deal in large quantities of cannabis face maximum penalties of up to 14 years for this offence. That is why I have discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers the need to focus police effort and to take strong action to reduce the supply of cannabis. The police and I agree that, in recent years, the production and dealing of cannabis have not always been targeted sufficiently vigorously, and we have agreed that this needs to change. ACPO will now draw up a consolidated campaign of action to attack the production and trafficking of cannabis, which provide obscene profits out of the misery of users. ACPO will aim to put cannabis farms out of business and dealers behind bars. At the same time, it will revise and strengthen its guidelines for dealing with cannabis-related crime.
	As hon. Members will be aware, the Home Office recently published a consultation exercise to look at the threshold levels of cannabis in a person's possession at which that person would be deemed to be a supplier. I would like to inform the House that my final decision will involve a considerably lower level than the 500g suggested in the current consultation.
	I believe that those education, health and police measures give clear and comprehensive messages about the dangers of cannabis and a warning that those who produce or are dealers in cannabis will be brought to justice. They are focused on reducing the use of cannabis, and I believe that reduction of use should be the goal of all our drugs policies, whether the drug is legal or illegal. Also, it is the case that clarity is the best weapon we have in the fight to reduce the use of cannabis. That is the basis on which I approach the issue of classification.
	The more that I have considered these matters, the more concerned I have become about the limitations of our current system. Decisions on classification often address different or conflicting purposes, and too often send strong but confusing signals to users and others about the harms and consequences of using a particular drug. Furthermore, there is often disagreement over the meaning of different classifications. For example, many people wrongly interpreted the reclassification of cannabis to mean that cannabis was not harmful and that its use was acceptable and even legal. For these reasons, I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due course.
	In regard to the particular issues in front of us now, as previously announced I have accepted the advice to keep methyl amphetamine as a class B drug, although this is subject to a review reporting later this year. Similarly, I have accepted the council's advice not to classify khat as a controlled drug. I can today announce that I have also asked the advisory council to report on the classification of so called date rape drugs, including GHB and Rohypnol.
	On cannabis, I have considered very carefully the advice that I have received from many sources. I am influenced by data on levels of use of the drug and evidence that cannabis use has fallen among 16 to 24-year-olds from 28 per cent. in 1998 to 24 per cent. last year. The preliminary assessment is that, contrary to my personal expectation, reclassification has not led to an increase in use. Moreover, I accept the view of the advisory council that further research on the mental health implications is needed before any decision to reclassify is made.
	While I shall keep this matter under close review in the light of the factors that I have mentioned, I have decided to accept the advisory council's recommendation, which is supported by the police and by most drug and mental health charities, to keep the current classification of cannabis. Everyone needs to understand that cannabis is harmful and illegal. Our education and health campaigns will clearly transmit that message. Police operations will target the producers and dealers so that the consumption of cannabis will be significantly reduced. I hope that the Government will have the support of the whole House in seeking that outcome.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. She has put her finger on precisely the issue that I found most difficult in reaching a view on these matters. I am conscious of her point about sending out signals, and dealing with that is a real issue; but I came to the view, which I of course defend, that we need to look at the situation in the round and to re-examine the classification system. I repeat that I was worried about precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I believe that today's proposals and the message that we sending are clear and unequivocal.

Don Foster: The Minister, from a sedentary position, gives a confidence boost to Bath's bid. I am delighted at that.
	Parts of the Bill will be criticised today, but I stress that my party supports much of it. For example, the establishment of a legal framework for the Big Lottery Fund is especially welcome, as that organisation has operated for 18 months before being allowed to come into formal existence. However, our biggest disagreement with the Government has to do with additionality, the subject of new clause 1, as we are concerned about the Government's tendency to try to get their hands on lottery money.
	Sir John Major set up the lottery when he was Prime Minister, and made it clear that the money raised would "not replace public expenditure". In 1997, the present Prime Minister used similar words, saying that it would not be right
	"to use Lottery money to pay for things that are the Government's responsibilities."
	More recently, the Minister responding to this debate said in Standing Committee that lottery money was "special" and that it
	"should add to, not substitute for, Government expenditure"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 November 2005; c. 240.]
	Last June, the Minister told the House that additionality was
	"an important principle that should be embodied in future legislation."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 168.]
	That is exactly why we have tabled new clause 1; to put into effect what the Minister said that he wanted. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) will move new clause 2 shortly. Both it and new clause 1 are attempts to give the Minister what he said wanted and ensure that the Bill deals with the question of additionality. If new clause 2 were to be pressed to a Division, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my party would support it.
	The public also believe that additionality is an important matter. Almost three-quarters of respondents to a 2003 YouGov poll said that it was "vitally important" that lottery distribution remain independent of Government interference. We must ensure that lottery money is not used as a slush fund by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, something that has happened far too often already.
	For example, £93 million of lottery funds has been spent on magnetic resonance imaging scanners for the NHS, and £42 million on providing fruit in school. That led Sir Clive Booth, the Big Lottery Fund's excellent chairman, to say that the
	"days of the government issuing instructions over Lottery cash for schemes such as the distribution of fruit to schoolchildren are gone".
	I hope that is true but, to make sure, we must get a guarantee enshrined in the Bill.
	The Culture, Media and Sport Committee expressed concern about this matter in its 2003–04 report. It stated:
	"The National Lottery has meant that there has been an erosion, in real terms, of the DCMS core funding."
	Increasingly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not spending as much money, as a proportion of gross domestic product, as it used to, but that is because it has come to rely increasingly on money from the various lottery distributors.
	Another aspect of the problem is that there is increasing confusion about which expenditure comes from the DCMS and which comes from the lottery. I shall give two examples. On the one hand, the Government claim credit for projects that in fact are funded by the lottery; on the other, they try to pass the buck for failure to the lottery. Parliamentary answers last November revealed that one Department incorrectly claimed credit for a supposedly independent project that was successful, whereas a Minister in another Department has blamed the lottery for unwise Government spending.
	A report from the Department for Trade and Industry said that the £1.9 million spent on renewable energy research into biomass was funded by "DTI and lottery spend". However, further questions uncovered the fact that none of the money spent on that research came from the DTI. In other words, the Government were claiming credit for research that was funded entirely by the lottery.
	On 31 October last year, I asked a parliamentary question about a highly contentious sports questionnaire survey that was criticised by various newspapers. The survey cost £6 million, but the Government answered that the money came from the national lottery. I pursued the matter, and several weeks later the DCMS admitted that the original answer was incorrect and that the vast majority of funding for that controversial project came from the Department. That shows that the Government have tried to confuse the public about what is lottery money and what is departmental money.
	Have the Government plundered lottery money? There are many arguments about that, but today's Daily Mail carries an article about a report from the Centre for Policy Studies. That is a Conservative-leaning think tank, but that does not mean that it is always wrong. The newspaper uses the headline "Labour Has 'Plundered Billions out of the Lottery'", and its analysis may go a little far. However, the centre's website carries the preface to the report, which I understand will be published tomorrow, and it makes very interesting reading. In it, Sir John Major—who, as I noted earlier, founded the lottery—states:
	"From the outset, I insisted that Lottery money should be used for additional spending on causes or activities that the taxpayer should not be expected to cover . . . When the Lottery Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of Government keeping an arms-length relationship from the Lottery and, in particular, grant distribution. But, since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer. Indeed, the "Big Lottery Fund" has a specific remit to fund health, education and environment projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of these projects to be funded directly by Government. The Labour Government's deliberate muddying of the waters between Exchequer and Lottery revenues is an unwelcome development and which, as its creator, dismays me greatly."

Don Foster: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would point out that the hon. Gentleman has just given a lengthier version of the cover that I had already given to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). However, you rightly chide us to move on from that issue.
	Notwithstanding the occasional blemishes on the record of parties on the issue, all the parties have said that they believe that additionality is a crucial issue. All parties have said that they do not wish to see the Government, whoever is in power, interfering in national lottery decisions. Given that occasionally people have strayed from that commitment, would it not be helpful to have legislation that ensured that that does not happen again in the future?
	During the passage of the national lottery legislation in 1993, and the changes made to it in 1998, attempts were made to add additionality to it. We have already had attempts by the Conservative party and by me to place something in the Bill. Those were attempts to define additionality, but they fell on stony ground. Indeed, the Minister rejected our proposal for a definition of additionality in Committee because he said that it would result in bureaucracy. I am not sure that that is a good reason, but our attempt was rejected for that and, no doubt, several other reasons.
	Today, I am taking a new approach that might find favour with the Government and obtain the support of the House. We do not suggest a definition of additionality but that the Bill should contain a requirement that the distributing bodies report annually on how they had reached their funding decisions. That would include the two crucial questions of additionality; how independence from the Government was maintained and what principles were used to maintain the distinction between core Government funding and the causes that the bodies had supported.
	I know that many of the distributing bodies have already committed themselves to annual reports on a variety of issues. For example, the Big Lottery Fund is already committed to reporting specifically on the additionality issue. Under the new clause, we seek to place in Bill the commitment that we have received from the biggest lottery distributor and perhaps to push the other distributors to follow suit, so that there is no opportunity to backslide in future.
	We have support from many quarters for the route that we have chosen. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
	"We believe that these commitments must be enshrined on the face of the Bill if they are to be meaningful and lasting."
	The National Campaign for the Arts said:
	"The New Clause is a modest attempt to ensure that the line between Government and Lottery cash cannot become ever more blurred . . . If inappropriate political pressure is being put on the Lottery distributors, then the public should be made aware of it. If, as is insisted, no such pressure is being exerted, then there can be nothing to fear from the New Clause."
	The Minister has given support to the new clause. In Committee, he said:
	"Somebody has to define the concept for the purpose of day-to-day operations, but if the concept were tied down to a definition that would be challengeable in law, those funds might be put into all types of litigation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 November 2005; c. 244.]
	He will not go down the route of placing such a definition in the Bill—although he might be persuaded to do so, given new clause 2—but he has at least made it clear that he wants something similar in the Bill and that he believes that annual reports on such issues should be produced. That is why it is crucial that the Minister should be prepared to support new clause 1, which is a modest attempt to ensure that we get something in the Bill to ensure that there is never again the possibility of blurring the distinction between national lottery money and Government-funded activity.

Richard Caborn: It is absolutely right that this is one of the tools that we will use the maximise the lottery, by setting the conditions for those who will negotiate. I am sure that we will not finish up, as we did last time with the new licence, in something of a mess, which created a few problems. We have looked at that carefully and reflected on it, and as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, we have just about got it right, so that we can maximise the marketplace. I am pretty sure that we will attract a good number of bidders, thus serving the health of the lottery.

Jo Swinson: I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to his new role on the Front Bench. I am sure he will find it a very fulfilling one. He mentioned that he did not have the enjoyable experience of serving on the Standing Committee, which I certainly found interesting, but no doubt there are many future Committees for him to look forward to.
	As has been outlined, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 remove the prescriptive powers of the Secretary of State which would otherwise be introduced. We support that. The view has emerged through Second Reading, Committee and Report that it is much better to ensure that lottery distribution is kept as independent of the Government as possible. That view is supported by the public. A poll for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations found that 73 per cent. of people wanted lottery funds to be distributed by an independent body. As the Bill is drafted, the Big Lottery Fund is not such a body, as the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe to whom it gives money and what it does. We support amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	Amendment No. 4 also revisits ground that was covered in earlier stages of the Bill regarding the percentage of the Big Lottery Fund's funding that will go towards communities and charities. On Second Reading, as has been mentioned, the Minister pointed out that that would be between 60 and 70 per cent., but in Committee he was unwilling for that figure to be written into the Bill, as called for by amendment No. 27, which both Opposition parties supported. We still believe it is important for that assurance to be enshrined in the Bill.
	In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) argued that the Big Lottery Fund had come to the figure of 60 to 70 per cent., but without any assurances, there was no guarantee that it would not change its mind at some later date. After all, the members of the Big Lottery Fund would no doubt change, and Ministers have even been known to change. Writing the figure into the Bill would give communities and charitable organisations the assurance that they seek.
	The Minister's argument was that it would not be helpful to have that set in stone. We must remember that the original National Lottery etc. Act 1993 set in stone the percentages of good causes money that had to be distributed by each distributor. The National Lottery Act 1998 adjusted those figures, but set them in stone. The Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 adjusted the figures again, and once more they were set in stone.
	The Bill itself proposes changes to the proportion of funding going to various bodies. The Act as amended will contain such specifics as the fact that 2.6 per cent. of the 16 per cent. of lottery money going to sport should go to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, and that 1.16 per cent. of the 16 per cent. spent on arts should go to Scottish Screen, so I am a little confused about how the Minister can argue for all that prescription—all those powers to tell the Big Lottery Fund what it should be doing—and then say that it would be a problem to set in stone the percentage of the money that should go to voluntary organisations. That does not seem to fit. As we know, things change, and an assurance in the Bill would be a welcome guarantee for those involved.
	Amendment No. 5 deals with a related issue—involving the voluntary sector in consultation. As was mentioned in Committee, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not usually judged to have a good record on consulting the voluntary sector. [Interruption.] It was mentioned in Committee on various occasions that there were concerns about how that was done. Including the new wording in the Bill would help to enshrine the best practice. If the Minister feels that the Department has a good record of which it can be proud, he will have no difficulty including those lines in the Bill to ensure best practice. If the Secretary of State is to have the power to prescribe expenditure that is likely to go to not-for-profit organisations, those organisations have a specific interest in the new power and should be consulted when it is used. That should be included in the Bill.
	Amendment 11, too, would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State. The current wording would force the Big Lottery Fund to comply with decisions by the Secretary of State, rather than taking account of them. I have no problem with the Secretary of State advising, giving counsel or putting points to the Big Lottery Fund. That is fair enough, but the power to make it comply is a step too far. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"I have already announced that we have adopted a light touch on the direction of the Big Lottery Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 110.]
	In my view, a light touch involves cajoling, encouraging or putting forward points, not making an organisation comply. How would the Government respond if, for example, unwelcome stories appeared in the press? Would they encourage the Big Lottery Fund to change its awards? I think that an advisory role is much more appropriate, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view.
	In a letter dated 1 November to Denis Vaughan, president of the Council for the Advancement of Arts, Recreation and Education, Sir John Major, who, as has been said many times in the course of this Bill, was the architect of the lottery, said:
	"It is scandalous how the Government have so emasculated the original purpose of the Lottery and I do take every suitable opportunity to raise this matter publicly. I shall continue to do so until the resources that were intended for the original good causes are returned to them."
	It is important to ensure that the lottery's independence is preserved, and the Secretary of State's powers should therefore be restricted.
	I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) withdraw amendment No. 10. We voted against clause 19 in Committee, but we understand its impact in allowing social enterprises to receive funding—social enterprises can often deliver projects effectively, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House support them. Clause 19 also raises some concerns about additionality, which we have already debated today. I hope that those concerns are addressed and that clause 19 is not used to put lottery funding into Government projects, which is not what the lottery was set up for.

Mark Field: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are designed to prevent a reallocation of funds that would result in current commitments not being kept or being delayed by force. The impact on projects of breaking commitments or delaying funding could be catastrophic. Problems with lottery funding could also lead to a loss of matched funding, which would be disastrous for the distributors concerned.
	We were delighted to receive backing from the National Campaign for the Arts in tabling these amendments. It recognises that the intention behind providing the power to transfer money between distributors is to encourage a reduction in balances, and we accept that there is no intention that this power be misused. It also recognises that there are powerful reasons both for and against providing the imperative drastically to reduce distributors' balances. On the one hand, it is important that organisations receive money as quickly as possible; on the other, we should be wary of creating a situation in which distributors cannot be fully responsible for their financial planning. The uncertainty that that would create would be felt at the level of individual organisations, which could have the money allocated to their projects removed due to a transfer of money to another distributor.
	In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had said that they would not exercise the power in a way that would threaten, or put into doubt, any commitment on the part of a distributor from which they proposed transferring a fund balance, and that he was happy to repeat that undertaking. We believe, however, that no convincing reason has been given as to why such a provision cannot be included in the Bill. We recognise that not all aspects of policy can, need or should be included in legislation. However, as the Minister is aware and as we said several times in Committee, the lottery is intended to promote and enable the good work carried out by thousands of organisations. They deserve no less than an absolute guarantee from the Government that promised funds will be delivered. We believe that Amendment No. 7 would secure that undertaking, and we ask all parts of the House to support it.
	I appreciate that time is tight and that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) would like to say a few words, so if I may I shall canter through our Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. The former seeks to change clause 8 by replacing the word "order" with
	"appropriate subsection of section 23."
	Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to reallocate funds to different bodies without changing the purpose of funding. For example, the Big Lottery Fund could be authorised to spend some of the money allocated for arts or national heritage, instead of Arts Council England or the National Heritage Memorial Fund doing so. Section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 sets out the various distributing bodies. The Bill as originally drafted provided for distribution by a different body, as specified in section 23. Amendment No. 6 confines the ability to reallocate funds between distribution bodies to those that are in the same category, so reallocation could take place between Arts Council England and the Scottish Arts Council, for example, as both are included under section 23(1) of the 1993 Act. However, the amendment would not allow a reallocation from Arts Council England to, for example, the Big Lottery Fund.
	We believe that there is no good reason why the BLF, which, as the Minister said only minutes ago, will have some 50 per cent. of the moneys in any event, should be able to redistribute the remaining arts, sports or heritage moneys. In practice, our amendment provides that the funds of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the national lottery charity fund cannot be reallocated. That is the right way forward, particularly given that the BLF will account for some 50 per cent. of all allocatable funds.
	Amendment No. 9 would delete clause 9, which makes a change that, although apparently technical, will have a substantial impact on the good causes. Currently, the national debt commissioners invest moneys that are not immediately needed by distributing bodies, under section 32 of the 1993 Act. The interest received is paid back to the distributing body whose money it is.
	Clause 9 will put that interest into a general lottery pot to be distributed among all the distributing bodies on the original proportionate basis. Those bodies funding projects with long lead-in times, such as major arts or heritage projects—like some of the projects in my constituency, which the Minister may have been too polite to mention earlier—will lose more interest on their funds than they will get back in the redistribution.
	Clause 9 is an important mechanism for transferring money from heritage and lottery causes to the Big Lottery Fund, and imperils existing funding commitments. That was made clear in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the reform of the national lottery. The Committee received significant evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund that all the money currently held in the lottery national distribution fund, and £188 million extra, was not being badly managed but had already been allocated.
	I hope that the Minister will give some thought to these amendments, as we are concerned about the reallocation proposals. I appreciate that time is tight, and that he might not be able to deal with all the points in full. If that is the case, he may prefer to do so in writing at some point. However, these are important issues and they go to the heart of the concern that the Secretary of State is gaining ever more power to prescribe. We believe that that is the wrong way to go.

Tony McNulty: I do not know the details of the case, but I should be more than happy to help my hon. Friend if he wants to take it up with me later.
	In implementing a UK asylum system, it is right and proper that we should engage with local agencies and people at a local level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk suggests. That is exactly what we do.
	I went up to Scotland for a couple of days before Christmas, and I made a promise to return once we have looked at some of the very matters raised in this debate. As I have indicated already, they include factors such as the different legal framework in Scotland, which means that some legislation—and especially that which relates to children—is different. We must make sure that we overcome such legislative problems.
	Initiatives and discussions undertaken by the First Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Executive have prompted us to look at everything that we do in terms of removals. As I said earlier, removals are a quintessential part of a progressive asylum policy, but media coverage that misinforms the public about what is going on is not helpful. I certainly acquit the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in that regard, but I am fed up of hearing about "dawn raids" when 20 police and immigration officers kick down a door at 3 o'clock in the morning and drag children out of their beds. If any hon. Member, or anyone else who hears or reads this debate, can prove to me definitively that any such event took place, I should be very grateful.
	No removal happens before half-past 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. Why so early? Well, because it is a guarantee that the family unit to be removed will be together. Nothing happens at 3 o'clock in the morning and children are not dragged from their beds.
	At worst, we have heard stories about riot gear, teargas and other fantasies that do not do the debate much good, do not do the people making that argument much credit and, crucially, do not do much for the applicants and their cases. Things are getting better, but I shall keep my promise to return to Scotland and inform the Scottish Executive and MPs how the interface between local agencies, from local authorities up to the Scottish Executive, is working, especially with regard to children in the specific context of Scotland. Through the Scottish initiative, we need to see how we can improve matters in the broader UK context and that is why this debate is welcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk is right that there are many unsung heroes among local authorities and local organisations, such as the ones that he mentioned, that are doing an enormous amount of work with new refugee communities and those who are still at the tail-end of the process and awaiting decisions or final removal.
	I have also had the good fortune to talk with the Scottish Refugee Council. I have yet to arrange—we have tried once, but it has not happened—a separate meeting with the Scottish children's commissioner, although I have met her. I am trying to arrange a meeting with all the children's commissioners to get their perspective on all these matters.
	I have no problem, other than those I have mentioned of sloppy linguistics and fatuous intellectual arguments, about where we are at with this debate and how it fits in with the wider public policy context that has been part of the media coverage in Scotland. I have no problem with people protesting and hurling abuse at me—in fact, they woke me up—as I go to BBC Scotland at about half-past 6 in the morning. However, I do object to people haranguing and harassing, in the guise of public protest, immigration and nationality directorate and immigration service staff at Festival court, day in and day out. Whatever people's objections to the public policy dimension—and it may be their view that if someone comes to this country, on whatever terms and in whatever context, they should be allowed to remain— I do not think that our rich history of public protest justifies the constant abuse and harassment, or at least the perception of it, of public servants who are just doing their job. I have said that in terms to the staff at Festival court.
	I do not think that it is very bright or grown-up of people to lock themselves in or sit in at Festival court, or to superglue the gates or generally disrupt genuine and legitimate business carried out by public servants and the public. I deprecate those who are involved in such activities. I deprecate those who say, perversely, that Strathclyde police should arrest UK immigration officers as they go about their business. We have heard such flights of fancy from particular individuals, but they do not help the debate. As my hon. Friend says, we want to encourage that debate. I want a debate about how we can all do what we want to in order to manage migration and asylum policy. I am not running away from such a debate. That might be unusual for an immigration Minister, but the time is right for such a debate, not least for the population reasons that have been given. I think that both the Executive and others in Scotland are ready for that debate, too. All the rather immature comment about removals is hampering serious debate. None the less, as my hon. Friend suggests, we are looking at the processes in the broader sense, particularly where families with children are involved, in terms of the new asylum model and other general changes in our practice.
	I have said repeatedly in the Scottish media and elsewhere that it cannot be right that people, especially those with children, are in the system for three, four or five years for whatever reason, given the roots that that they put down, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire suggests. That is especially the case where children have come in at the age of two or three and are five, six, seven or eight by the time that their cases are determined. That cannot be right and we need to change the process and ensure that people get their decisions faster. That is not a reason to stop removals; neither does it challenge their legitimacy as part of a robust asylum policy. Yes, removals must be done very sensitively. Yes, we must work with the other agencies to secure them, as my hon. Friend suggests.
	Again, I have said in the Scottish media that I would like to be the immigration Minister who finally sees an end to enforced removals. I am not apportioning blame or lapsing into using a Daily Mail lexicon in any way, shape or form, but at least part of the delays in the system until now involve the choices made by the individuals in the process. I can understand that if their endgame is that they would rather stay here than leave. Of course, there are sensitivities. Of course, enforced removals are always fraught with difficulties and stress, not least when children are involved. We are looking very seriously at that issue. If we need to change things because of the Scottish dimension, that would be more than appropriate. Part of my task is to ensure that, during my tenure and given what we are doing with managed migration and the new asylum model, we are not simply building up the next wave of cases of people with young children who remain in the system for three, four or five years.

Tony McNulty: I would tell all those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers to sit down and work with us in trying to reach a consensus on how to do things better than we do. Enforced removals are part of the process, as I have now said probably to the point of tedium. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is simply not good enough for the children's commissioner—a public official—to talk about inhumane conditions and terrorising children. Again, I said that in terms in the public domain.
	Of course the language, emotions and so on used will be heightened because families and children are involved, but we need to talk in rational terms. The more that we can do with the recently announced package, which has increased the assistance available to those who remove themselves voluntarily, the better. The more that we can get people more broadly to understand what the asylum process is about—rather than confusing it with immigration, which feeds into the public debate, as my hon. Friend suggests—the better. To that end, the head man at Festival court spent the best part of a couple of hours with the girls at Drumchapel school going through how an asylum policy differs from an immigration policy. That sort of public awareness is very important. We need to do more of that work. We also need to turn things round and look at what we are doing in public policy terms with refugees.
	I absolutely applaud all that Glasgow council has sought to do, as I told its leader when I was up there. As everyone knows, that is the main area not just of dispersal but of the asylum seeker population, for want of a better phrase. I have huge praise for what those involved are doing—often, in the early days, in very difficult conditions.
	I implore Scotland as a body politic to talk about these issues. Let us have a proper, legitimate debate about asylum, immigration and all the other concerns about population. We are already revisiting the processes. I will go to Scotland in the next couple of months to report on how far with have got with that, and I am more than happy to engage further in the Scottish dimension of the debate. However, UK asylum policy is rooted in the 1951 convention and our new asylum model is the way forward—
	It being half-past Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.